Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Why am I telling you all this? Well, much like the Perugia police are accused of in the Kercher case, the police officers in my case lied to me and exerted extreme intimidation in an attempt to elicit a confession. They claimed that they "knew I did it" and that the polygraph told them so. My interrogation lasted for appoximately two and a half hours, and was one of the most harrowing and traumatic experiences of my life. However, at no point did I ever consider falsely blaming another (or confessing myself to a crime I didn't do). No matter how many times they said "you did it", I always stuck to my guns because I was telling the truth.

I appreciate the anecdote and I think anyone who has cooperated with police and/or been accused and/or had to stand trial while they were truly innocent would sympathise with you. It's almost impossible to believe that anyone who was innocent and stuck in an interrogation room--after their alibi fell through or the cops lied and said it had fallen through--would arbitrarily name an unconnected third party. No matter how the FOA camp spins it, it is hard to believe anyone would do such a thing if they were truly innocent.

Doesn't prove she's guilty. But--wow--the mind simply boggles over that part of Amanda's behaviour.

 

[stilicho]

Thank you for the welcome.

Yes, I find this notion of "false memories" also quite suspect, to put it mildly. Amanda's memory is excellent except for the crucial night of 1 Nov 2007.

I also do not accept that she cannot remember because she was too intoxicated on cannabis. In my younger days, I also partook of several illegal drugs, particularly and extensively in the case of cannabis. The notion that one can't even remember if they were present at a brutal murder scene or not because they were stoned is ludicrous to me and I'm sure most anyone else with any experience smoking cannabis.

Her memory is perfect and clear in her "alibi email" of 04 NOV 2007, too, prior to her arrest. She apparently only goes on "Vision Quests" after being placed in custody. By the way, Dan O's preferred diagnosis is "injected false memories".

 

[Fuji]

I appreciate the anecdote and I think anyone who has cooperated with police and/or been accused and/or had to stand trial while they were truly innocent would sympathise with you. It's almost impossible to believe that anyone who was innocent and stuck in an interrogation room--after their alibi fell through or the cops lied and said it had fallen through--would arbitrarily name an unconnected third party. No matter how the FOA camp spins it, it is hard to believe anyone would do such a thing if they were truly innocent.

Doesn't prove she's guilty. But--wow--the mind simply boggles over that part of Amanda's behaviour.

Thanks, stilicho. I agree fully. I only hope that one day one of the three convicts will finally tell the whole, unvarnished truth.

 

[Dan O.]

Where did you get the idea I thought that?

Each of the cases I've bothered to look up from halides1's links has been completely different than the allegations against Stefanoni and her crime lab.

Not only that, but that Australian case was cited as an example of contamination being discovered by the release of certain files. It wasn't. It was discovered because the suspect lived hundreds of kilometres from the crimescene. It was confirmed when it was revealed that the suspect had been a victim of a crime and that items of hers were being tested at the same time.

When are we going to read an example that resembles the Perugia murder case?

When are you going to stop confusing the issues? There are two issues being discussed: Contamination occurs in crime labs. And Stefanoni has refused to release the .fsa files.

Chris has produced indisputable evidence that contamination has occurred in multiple crime labs. The facts of those cases of the suspects being hundreds of kilometers from the crime scene was in no way related to the cause of the contamination but contributed to the proof that the positive match was the result of contamination. The relevant fact between those cases and the Perugia case is that DNA was processed in a crime lab.

Contamination cannot be ruled out because the suspects were only a few hundred meters away or by Stefanoni declaring that there is no contamination. Contamination can only be ruled out by actually measuring the contamination rates in the lab so the mathematical probability against contamination can be assigned.


On the separate issue of the .fsa files, why does Stefanoni refuse to release them? Stefanoni as the prosecutions expert was permitted to review these files to make an interpretation that was presented to the court . Why doesn't the defense get the same access? Does Italian law allow the prosecution to withhold evidence from the defense?

 

[Fiona]

Has anyone disagreed that contamination can happen?
Has it been established that any files have been withheld?

 

[stilicho]

When are you going to stop confusing the issues? There are two issues being discussed: Contamination occurs in crime labs. And Stefanoni has refused to release the .fsa files.

Chris has produced indisputable evidence that contamination has occurred in multiple crime labs. The facts of those cases of the suspects being hundreds of kilometers from the crime scene was in no way related to the cause of the contamination but contributed to the proof that the positive match was the result of contamination. The relevant fact between those cases and the Perugia case is that DNA was processed in a crime lab.

Contamination cannot be ruled out because the suspects were only a few hundred meters away or by Stefanoni declaring that there is no contamination. Contamination can only be ruled out by actually measuring the contamination rates in the lab so the mathematical probability against contamination can be assigned.

On the separate issue of the .fsa files, why does Stefanoni refuse to release them? Stefanoni as the prosecutions expert was permitted to review these files to make an interpretation that was presented to the court . Why doesn't the defense get the same access? Does Italian law allow the prosecution to withhold evidence from the defense?

Wait a second. The links halides1 provides are presumed to be relevant to his argument that only releasing the *.xyz files are going to prove contamination. As it turns out, this is never the case. Not one single example has demonstrated this. The most recent example of contamination was revealed by the strong alibi of the suspect. Nothing at all to do with released files. This is over and above the question about whether these files themselves are (a) habitually released or (b) immune from fraud or manipulation.

When I click on a link to read more then I expect that it was actually read and understood by the person who put it there. If they want me to ignore the facts presented there then they should explain that first instead of sending me on a fishing expedition.

I have not read a single "sciency" link from halides1 that is not almost entirely irrelevant to the argument he is trying to make. I am less than under-impressed.

Now, back to the challenge, please assist halides1 to discover a case that resembles that of the Perugia murder. It must include an example of contamination that was discovered only through the release of *.xyz files, had multiple correct identifications, multiple contaminated identifications, and was not previously suggested by strong alibis, internal audits, inquisitive legislators or law enforcement personnel.

Understood?

 

[stilicho]

...the suspects were only a few hundred meters away...

Or less.

Which one will roll over first? RS, AK or RG? Any ideas?

 

[Fulcanelli]

When are you going to stop confusing the issues? There are two issues being discussed: Contamination occurs in crime labs. And Stefanoni has refused to release the .fsa files.

Evidence it.

Chris has produced indisputable evidence that contamination has occurred in multiple crime labs. The facts of those cases of the suspects being hundreds of kilometers from the crime scene was in no way related to the cause of the contamination but contributed to the proof that the positive match was the result of contamination. The relevant fact between those cases and the Perugia case is that DNA was processed in a crime lab.

'Chris' has evidenced contamination can and has happened in the past, as we all already knew. And? Your argument is what, crime labs are evil? If not, what? Spell it out, just for those of us that have difficulty understanding nonsense.

I take it, when a loved one of yours is murdered in a crime, you won't be turning to a crime lab to help find out who did then?

Contamination cannot be ruled out because the suspects were only a few hundred meters away or by Stefanoni declaring that there is no contamination. Contamination can only be ruled out by actually measuring the contamination rates in the lab so the mathematical probability against contamination can be assigned.

Contamination can NEVER be absolutely ruled out, in ANY case. You are throwing a straw man at Dr Stefanoni, deliberately twisting her meaning. When she says there has been no contamination, it is not in reference to contamination that may remain unknown, but rather that no review or post examination has discovered any finding to be as the result of contamination during that period. One doesn't have to be obtuse...you do have a choice.

[qyote="Dan_O"]On the separate issue of the .fsa files, why does Stefanoni refuse to release them? Stefanoni as the prosecutions expert was permitted to review these files to make an interpretation that was presented to the court . Why doesn't the defense get the same access? Does Italian law allow the prosecution to withhold evidence from the defense?[/quote]

Release them to WHOM? WHO has asked for them? WHEN? And provide the evidence. Also provide your evidence that she not complied with the rules.

Have you written to her yet Dan_O? If so, what did she say? If not, why not?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Has anyone disagreed that contamination can happen?
Has it been established that any files have been withheld?

No, all they do is assert it...endlessly.

We ask them to prove it and they simply make the same assertion again. The emperor has no clothes.

So, next time they assert it (as they will, these guys are addicted to repetition), ask for the evidence again...ad infinitum.

 

[Amazer]

When are you going to stop confusing the issues? There are two issues being discussed: Contamination occurs in crime labs. And Stefanoni has refused to release the .fsa files.

Chris has produced indisputable evidence that contamination has occurred in multiple crime labs. The facts of those cases of the suspects being hundreds of kilometers from the crime scene was in no way related to the cause of the contamination but contributed to the proof that the positive match was the result of contamination. The relevant fact between those cases and the Perugia case is that DNA was processed in a crime lab.

Contamination cannot be ruled out because the suspects were only a few hundred meters away or by Stefanoni declaring that there is no contamination. Contamination can only be ruled out by actually measuring the contamination rates in the lab so the mathematical probability against contamination can be assigned.


On the separate issue of the .fsa files, why does Stefanoni refuse to release them? Stefanoni as the prosecutions expert was permitted to review these files to make an interpretation that was presented to the court . Why doesn't the defense get the same access? Does Italian law allow the prosecution to withhold evidence from the defense?

I've been following this discussion for a while now... and it is interesting. I do think that you, Kestrel and Halides1 really need to go beyond the mudslinging to see what will stick and start offering something more substantial.

On the first issue, contamination in crime labs. I don't think that I have heard/seen anyone argue that contamination does not happen in Crime Labs. But it's up to you to prove that it happened in this case. And so far you have not given us anything credible that would indicate that contamination is an issue here.

On the second issue, Steffoni refusing to release the .fsa files. You would first would have to provide evidence that .fsa files are routinely released (in Italy). You haven't done this. Irrespective of the above point you would have to provide evidence that the court ruled that Steffoni had to release the .fsa files to the defense. You haven't done this either. And then you should provide evidence that Sfeffoni did not release the .fsa files even though the court had ordered her to do so. I've not seen evidence of this either.

Especially your second issue with regard to Steffoni should be easy to resolve. This matter would have been surely brought up by the defense in court.

 

[Dan O.]

Her memory is perfect and clear in her "alibi email" of 04 NOV 2007, too, prior to her arrest. She apparently only goes on "Vision Quests" after being placed in custody. By the way, Dan O's preferred diagnosis is "injected false memories".

Now, where did I use that phrase? If you search the thread, you will find it repeated 8 times and always by the same poster.

 

[Kestrel]

I've been following this discussion for a while now... and it is interesting. I do think that you, Kestrel and Halides1 really need to go beyond the mudslinging to see what will stick and start offering something more substantial.

When a prosecution expert makes a scientifically false statement in court, in her field of expertise, is it really just mudslinging to point out the error?

 

[Amazer]

When a prosecution expert makes a scientifically false statement in court, in her field of expertise, is it really just mudslinging to point out the error?

Which prosecution expert and what scientifically false statement? You'll have to be a little more specific before I comment on that.

 

[Kestrel]

Which prosecution expert and what scientifically false statement? You'll have to be a little more specific before I comment on that.

Prosecution expert Patrizia Stefanoni's statement that "Dead skin cells don't contain DNA".

 

[Amazer]

Prosecution expert Patrizia Stefanoni's statement that "Dead skin cells don't contain DNA".

It would seem (having read the thread in the science forum too) that this statement is indeed false.

But from what we learned in that thread, it's not yet possible with our current techniques to get a full profile from dead skin cells. So i fail to see how this little detour helps your case.

 

[stilicho]

Now, where did I use that phrase? If you search the thread, you will find it repeated 8 times and always by the same poster.

What was it? Induced false memories? Created false memories? I know you talked about it and none of the evidence you presented had anything in common with AK's "Vision Quest" that she self-diagnosed. The defence teams produced no experts to argue that such a condition existed at all--let alone in the defendant.

@Amazer & Kestrel: I haven't bothered with that statement much because I don't have its context. Kestrel hangs onto it limpet-like as though it were the tarnished grail of corruption threatening to burst the case wide open.

Instead, it's likely a handy paraphrase that has no bearing whatsoever on this case or on Stefanoni's integrity as a world-class forensic expert.

 

[lector]

Or less.

Which one will roll over first? RS, AK or RG? Any ideas?

This week we had a cold case solved here in my part of the world, in Newark, NJ, involving the murder of 5 kids 32 years ago by 3 accomplices. None of them ever rolled over; a witness finally came forward.

So I guess the adage that 3 people can't keep a secret doesn't always hold.

 

[stilicho]

This week we had a cold case solved here in my part of the world, in Newark, NJ, involving the murder of 5 kids 32 years ago by 3 accomplices. None of them ever rolled over; a witness finally came forward.

So I guess the adage that 3 people can't keep a secret doesn't always hold.

That is not uncommon. Nobody wants to be the prison snitch. You can put your life at serious risk in jail by turning in others. All three are, by now, accustomed to imprisonment and wouldn't see much to gain by getting that stain on their record.

You should look into the details of that case. I know we always call them "cold cases" but only because they take so long to resolve. The police have limited resources, of course, but there are always people in the department who know what happened and simply haven't been able to get sufficient evidence to go to trial. TV shows sensationalise these as "cold cases" but they aren't thrown into a bin that everybody forgets about.

 

[Kestrel]

It would seem (having read the thread in the science forum too) that this statement is indeed false.

But from what we learned in that thread, it's not yet possible with our current techniques to get a full profile from dead skin cells. So i fail to see how this little detour helps your case.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. It's well established that full DNA profiles can be extracted from dead skin cells. Note the two cases I mentioned a while back. Randomly gathered household dust may be another matter.

My contention is that the excessive and clumsy handling of the bra clasp during collection contaminated the evidence. Finding DNA from at least three unknown individuals in the same sample is clear evidence of contamination.

 

[Amazer]

Sorry, but that is incorrect. It's well established that full DNA profiles can be extracted from dead skin cells. Note the two cases I mentioned a while back. Randomly gathered household dust may be another matter.

My contention is that the excessive and clumsy handling of the bra clasp during collection contaminated the evidence. Finding DNA from at least three unknown individuals in the same sample is clear evidence of contamination.

So what does the judge say about this 'clear' evidence of contamination?